smoot

DAN SMOOT

CASE STUDY OF A CONSPIRACY "EXPERT" --rev. 12/15/11

It probably is not much of an exaggeration to
observe that, eventually, every right-wing conspiracy proponent gets around to
quoting former FBI Special Agent Dan Smoot as an expert witness about matters
pertaining to the "Master Conspiracy"
operating in the United States.

Many conspiracy authors cite Dan's 1962 book, The Invisible Government, for its unique
insights based upon his "inside
knowledge" as a former FBI Special Agent.

In late 1993 I read Dan's autobiography
entitled People Along The Way. I
was curious about Dan's explanation for why he decided to leave the FBI (pages
181-184 of his book) – especially since I had received preliminary documents
from the FBI which seemed to contradict Dan's explanation.

In January 1994 I decided to write to Dan to seek
further information. In my letter, I quoted a single paragraph from an FBI
document I had received which stated that, shortly before his resignation from
the Bureau, Dan "was censured, placed on
probation, and transferred due to several unfounded charges against his SAC." [Special-Agent-In-Charge
of an FBI Field Office].

Dan replied to me on January 24, 1994. In his
letter, Dan wrote:

"Your source says
that I was censured and placed on probation. If so, I never heard about it
before reading your letter. I never received any kind of notice, written or
oral, from anyone, that I had been censured and put on probation. I assumed
that my transfer to Savannah was a disciplinary transfer, but it was
not designated as such when delivered to me."

That is where matters stood until July 24,
2003 when Dan died. I then sent a Freedom-of-Information-Act request to
the FBI for his personnel file. I received documents in July 2004 and July
2005.

It turns out that Dan had been censured on three
occasions during his relatively brief FBI career. According to his personnel
file, the final occasion came about as a consequence of an inspection of
the Dallas field office where Dan was assigned.

First, let's review Dan's explanation of the
pertinent events. Afterward I will provide the Bureau's explanation:

DAN SMOOT'S EXPLANATION FROM
HIS JANUARY 24, 1994 LETTER TO ME:

"I liked and admired my last boss
in the FBI (Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas Office), but five or six
other experienced agents frequently complained about him. While
the Dallas office was being inspected, they talked me into telling
the Inspector that the SAC apparently had a personnel problem: but, when
interviewed by the inspector, not one of them backed me up. This converted my
considerable friend, the SAC, into a bitter enemy. It was he, I assume, who
caused me to be transferred out of the Dallas office. I hold no grudge or
ill-will toward him for this. I stupidly thought I was acting for the good of
the service when I suggested the inspector try to help him with any personnel
problem he might have; he, naturally, thought I stabbed him in the back for no
reason at all."

"I tried to put this in my book as
one of my FBI experiences; but it seemed incomprehensible unless fleshed out
with explanations, names, personalities, and details about the inner workings
of the FBI family. With all that added, the incident was much too long, too
dull, too pointless."

"Now, your letter of January 20, 1994 comes as a thunderclap of
news: that 1951 event which I cast aside as trivial was, by far, the most
significant of all my FBI experiences. Apparently, it has forever branded me,
in the FBI file, as a villain; and I had always had very good or excellent
ratings before then."

DAN'S
CLAIM THAT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF HIS CENSURE OR PROBATION:

Dan's personnel file contains a copy a May 15,
1951 censure letter written by J. Edgar Hoover which was mailed to Smoot
at the Dallas field office. Here is the text:

"The Bureau has reviewed
information developed during the course of the recent inspection of the Dallas
Division, at which time you submitted a memorandum setting out certain
criticisms of your Special Agent in Charge (SAC) and it has been ascertained
that you were aware of certain discussions on the part of other Agents assigned
to your office, which were critical of the manner in which your SAC handled a
phase of the case involving (name deleted). It is further noted that these matters
came to your attention in November 1950 but you took no action for the purpose
of informing the Bureau until your discussion with the Inspector. You were also
critical of the manner in which your SAC conducted an inquiry into certain
complaints which had been made against a former Special Agent who was assigned
to the Dallas Division, and it has been determined that such criticisms on your
part were entirely unwarranted."

"The above matters are most
certainly not in keeping with the standards expected of Bureau agents.
Accordingly, you are being placed on probation; it will be incumbent upon you
to establish by the proper performance of your duties and by your careful
fulfillment of all your responsibilities as an Agent that you are qualified and
properly disposed to continue in that position. Should there be any recurrence
of the dereliction mentioned above, more severe administrative action may
become necessary."

In addition, Dan received an interim "Special Efficiency Report"
covering his performance from April 1, 1951 to his resignation. Dan
was rated "unsatisfactory"
in the following category:

Attached to this report was a SAC memo. Directly
underneath the final paragraph of the SAC memo (text shown below) Dan entered
his initials to confirm receipt of the Special Efficiency Report and SAC memo.

The final paragraph was:

"During the course of a recent
inspection in the Dallas Division this agent submitted a memorandum setting out
certain criticisms of the SAC and was critical of the manner in which the SAC
conducted an inquiry into certain complaints which had been made against a
former Special Agent who was formerly assigned to the Dallas Division. It was
determined that such criticisms on the part of this agent were entirely
unwarranted. As the result of this agent's unfounded complaints, by letter
dated May 15, 1951, the Bureau placed this agent on
probation and transferred him from the Dallas Division to the Savannah
Division." [HQ
67-263689, serials #145-#148; my emphasis in bold type]

By letter dated June 8, 1951, Dan resigned
from the Bureau.

THE BUREAU'S
EXPLANATION OF WHAT TRANSPIRED DURING THE
INSPECTION OF THE DALLAS OFFICE:

"He [Smoot] misinterpreted,
repeated and set forth in a memorandum to the Inspector allegations which were
entirely incorrect…He unjustly criticized the SAC concerning the SAC's handling
of an inquiry which resulted in the resignation of a former Special Agent. He
failed to notify the Bureau or the SAC of the existence of the above-mentioned
allegations…It was evident during the course of the interview that Smoot had an
intense dislike for the SAC. He admitted he did resent the SAC in agents'
conferences making grammatical errors while expressing himself…He also stated the
agents of the office had no respect for the SAC, and it was determined this
opinion was not shared by other agents. By letter dated 5/15/51 he
was censured, placed on probation, and ordered under transfer to
the Savannah office."

The Bureau Agent who conducted the inspection of
the Dallas office (Gerald C. Gearty) recommended 4 actions against
Smoot:

"1. That he be transferred to another division
2. That he be placed on probation
3. That he be suspended for 10 days without pay.
4. That he receive a severe letter of censure."[See HQ 67-263689, #144; 5/4/51 memo from H.L. Edwards to Mr.
Glavin]

Gearty's 60-page report concerning Smoot's charges
was sent to J. Edgar Hoover on April 24, 1951. It includes
a 4/9/51 memo by Smoot in which Dan summarized, from his
perspective, the events that occurred and how he became involved.

In his memo, Smoot admits that "I had only hearsay information" with
respect to "serious charges against two
Bureau officials" which he had not reported prior to the
inspection of the Dallas office but which subsequently became the basis of
Smoot's accusations against his SAC.

DAN SMOOT'S CLAIMS ABOUT HIMSELF
AFTER RETIRING FROM THE FBI

Dan described himself as follows in a biographical
sketch appearing in the 8/3/56 issue of his newsletter, Dan Smoot Report. I have highlighted two
portions in bold type – which I will discuss momentarily.

"Dan Smoot was born
in Missouri. Reared in Texas, he attended SMU in Dallas, taking
BA and MA degrees from that university in 1938 and 1940. In 1941 he joined the
faculty at Harvard as a Teaching Fellow in English, doing graduate work for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of American Civilization. In 1942
he took a leave of absence from Harvard in order to join the FBI. At the close
of the war, he stayed in the FBI rather than return to Harvard. He served as an
FBI Agent in all parts of the nation, handling all kinds of
assignments. But for three and a half years, he worked exclusively on communist investigations in the industrial midwest.
For two years following that, he was on FBI HQ staff in Washington, as
an Administrative Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover."

Communist
Investigations:

Dan's claim that he worked "exclusively on communist investigations" for "3 ½ years" is contradicted by his
1993 autobiography.

In that autobiography, Dan wrote that he was
assigned to the Communist squad in Cleveland for three
years but speaking engagements and training "took up much of my time during the remaining months of my
tenure in the Cleveland office (and) gave
me considerable relief from Communist duty…" [Dan Smoot, People Along The Way, Tyler Press, 1993,
p162.]

Dan's personnel file reflects that
he did work on investigations involving Communist infiltration of
labor unions, but there is nothing to support Dan's claim that he
worked "exclusively" on
Communist matters. His autobiography also mentions that he found this work to
be boring and tedious.

Administrative
Assistant to J. Edgar Hoover:

With respect to Dan's claim that he worked as
an "Administrative Assistant to J.
Edgar Hoover", a definitive memo from the FBI discusses
this matter. I quote extensively from it below.
It should be kept in mind while
reading this memo that there were only two FBI Special Agents whose
post-FBI use of this descriptive term became an issue – Dan Smoot and W. Cleon
Skousen.

The memo is captioned:

"Former Special Agent Howard D.
Smoot: Use of Title Administrative Assistant"

"Purpose: To report results of a review of the personnel
file of captioned individual and references in Bureau files to determine if
former SA Howard D. Smoot, better known as Dan Smoot, was ever referred to in
Bureau correspondence or biographical sketches as an Administrative Assistant
to the Director.

"Dan Smoot: Former SA Howard
D. Smoot entered on duty with the Bureau on March 23, 1942 and
resigned on 6-15-51 while assigned to the Dallas office. He
had worked in the Portland, San Francisco, Dallas and Cleveland offices
prior to being transferred to the Bureau (HQ) in October 1946. After serving a
short time in the Investigative Division, he was transferred
on 2-15-47 to the Crime Records Section where he remained until
transferred to Dallas for health reasons in November 1948.
On May 15, 1951, Smoot was censured, placed on probation and transferred
to the Savannah office because of his failure to inform the Bureau earlier
of information in his possession concerning misconduct of others in the Dallas office,
and for making unfounded charges against his SAC. Thereafter, he
resigned."

"In June 1951, Smoot began working for `Facts Forum', a group financed and backed by the millionaire oil
man H.L. Hunt, owner and operator of the Hunt Oil Company. Smoot resigned from 'Facts Forum' in July 1955 and
thereafter operated privately as a commentator and publisher of a newssheet
entitled 'The Dan Smoot Report'. This
report was the subject of SAC Letter 59-17 (F) dated 3-24-59 which
identified Smoot as a former Agent and instructed that inquiries concerning him
and his paper be handled in a most circumspect manner."

"A thorough review of the
three-volume personnel file of Smoot (67-263689) fails to reflect any reference
to him as an 'Administrative Assistant' or
an 'Administrative Assistant to the
Director'. This title did not appear in any letter of appointment,
transfer, censure or probation. No communication concerning speeches given by
Smoot or any other official matter concerning him contained either of these
titles. After Smoot left the Bureau, he was publicly described in newspaper
articles as an Administrative Assistant to the Director. Files indicate he has
continued to use this designation."

"Review of Bureau files: The specific matter concerning the
use of the title 'Administrative
Assistant' by Smoot was the subject of a memorandum
dated 9-13-61 from Mr. Callahan to Mr. Mohr (original attached). It
points out that the Bureau has never had an official position classification
for SA's of either 'Administrative
Assistant' or 'Administrative
Assistant to the Director'. There were times in the late 1930's when Agent
Supervisors at the Seat of Government were referred to as Administrative
Assistants in outgoing correspondence in connection with speeches. A SAC Letter
dated 7-9-47 advised that there was no such title for Agents as 'Administrative Assistant to the Director'
or 'Administrative Assistant' and
that such a title should never be used in referring to representatives of the
Bureau." …

"Recommendation: For information. I recommend we
continue the same policy as set forth above. It appears obvious that Smoot is
attempting to use his prior service with the FBI as much as possible. He is a professional 'anticommunist'
who is strictly out for money." … [HQ 62-102576, #125; 11/8/62 memo
from D.C. Morrell to Mr. DeLoach; my
emphasis in red type.]

July 1962
Smoot Reply To Inquiry About His FBI Status

In July 1962, Smoot replied to an inquiry by
an Indiana resident concerning his FBI career. The inquiry asked
Smoot about rumors that Dan had retired from the FBI due to a "nervous condition" according to an
alleged report by a former FBI employee.

In his reply, Smoot said that other rumors had been
circulated concerning his status including one that he was fired for stealing.
Dan then wrote:

"All the rumors, including the one
you heard, are false. After 9 years and three months in the FBI, I was still an
Agent in good standing when I resigned voluntarily in June, 1951—under no kind
of threat or pressure to do so. I resigned because I wanted to change my
occupation and settle my family permanently in Dallas." [HQ 62-102576,
#110; 7/10/62 letter by Smoot in reply to inquiry]

As demonstrated from the data summarized above,
Dan lied by referring to himself as "an Agent in good standing" when he
resigned.

To
re-capitulate:

1. Dan received a censure letter from Hoover

2. Dan received a Special Efficiency Report which
contained derogatory statements and which specifically told him he was on
probation --- and Dan initialed the document to confirm he received it

3. In his 1994 letter to me, Dan admits that even
he assumed his transfer to Savannah was a "disciplinary transfer".

MY
SUBSEQUENT LETTER TO DAN

On March 20, 1995 I again wrote to Dan
because of comments appearing in the February 22, 1965 issue of Dan Smoot Report. In that issue, Dan
stated that "the civil rights movement in
the United States is a Communist creation, and has been largely
manipulated by the Communists since it was created."

In my letter, I asked Dan if, while employed in the
FBI, he ever had occasion to read a Bureau monograph entitled "Communist Party and the Negro"
or "Communism and the Negro
Movement—A Current Analysis." I also asked him if he had access
to any other Bureau summary reports concerning the civil rights movement.

Dan never replied. However, in 2004, I obtained
copies of my correspondence
from Texas A&M University where some of Dan's private
papers were archived. Dan wrote across the top of it: "No answer".

DAN ON
CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT:

Dan discussed the civil rights movement at length
in the February 22, 1965 issue of Dan Smoot Report (DSR).

I shall discuss two comments by Dan:

(1) his assertion about
a Negro Soviet Republic being current Communist strategy
and

"In 1928, Joseph Stalin gave
specific directions: the communist goal was to confiscate the property of all
whites in the ‘black-belt' region of
the American southern States, detach the region from the Union, and
establish it as a Negro Soviet Republic. This communist
objective has never been altered." (DSR, 2/22/65, page 57; my
emphasis in red type)

By contrast, compare Dan's statement to J. Edgar
Hoover's January 1960 testimony before the Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee during which Hoover discussed the 17th National
Convention of the Communist Party USA held in New York City on December
10, 1959:

"The Negro resolution adopted by
the convention discarded the party's historic position advocating 'self-determination' meaning that
Negroes should be given the right to form a separate nation in the Southern
States…The 1959 convention resolution hence represents a party admission that
its position concerning Negroes is bankrupt. Time itself has shown that the
party is not interested in the welfare of the Negro, but only in using him as a
tool to advance party interests." [J. Edgar Hoover: An Analysis of the 17th
National Convention of the Communist Party USA; Statement made to Senate
Internal Security Subcommittee, 1/17/60, page 7; Also see: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, March 1960
– for same comment.]

Even the KKK newspaper, The Fiery Cross, recognized this change of Communist strategy!

"With the CPUSA
steadily declining in open membership, the official doctrine was changed from
creating a separate Negro state in the U.S. to one of full
integration. (Ben) Davis [National
Secretary CPUSA] had argued for this change in order
to obtain maximum Negro support. The party line change became official in 1959." [The Fiery Cross, "Communist Exploitation of the U.S. Racial
Crisis", August 1964, page 1]

Furthermore, this change of Communist strategy was
confirmed by FBI informants who subsequently testified before the House Committee
on Un-American Activities.

Both of the FBI informants cited below
(Lola Belle Holmes and Julia Brown) became paid speakers for the John
Birch Society after they surfaced as FBI informants. Dan Smoot endorsed
and recommended the Birch Society.

Lola Belle Holmes testified about the internal
CP dispute at its 17th National Convention in New York City over a
document entitled "Theoretical
Aspects of the Negro Question In the United States". Lola told
the House Committee on Un-American Activities that:

"This document was a
very controversial document and the theoretical aspect of the Negro question
was a very controversial question. It took up more time in the national
convention than any other question because the CP does not fight for equal
rights of Negroes; only in theory; it is not especially interested in the Negro
problems; it does not want to solve the Negro problems. Therefore, it was a
problem to get the Communist Party to act on a Negro resolution supporting the
civil rights movement, that is, integration for Negroes. The Communist Party,
when I went into the Party in 1957...advocated Negro nationalism, and a
separate State for the Negroes, self-determination, and we fought to get the
Communist Party to do away with Negro nationalism and fight for integration." [Communist Activities in the Chicago IL area,
Part 1; Hearings Before the Committee on Un-American Activities, May
25, 1965, page 360.]

Civil
Rights Movement--A Communist Creation?

According to Dan in his newsletter, Dan Smoot Report (DSR):

"The so-called
civil-rights movement in the United States is a communist creation,
and has been largely manipulated by communists since it was created." (DSR, 2/22/65,
page 58)

This Smoot comment is substantively identical to
the position of the John Birch Society. See, for example:

“Our task must be simply to make clear
that the movement known as ‘civil rights’ is Communist-plotted, Communist
controlled, and in fact…serves only Communist purposes.” [JBS Bulletin, July 1965].

However, both Dan Smoot and the John Birch Society
ignore or suppress the potent testimony of Birch Society members, endorsers,
and speakers who have refuted standard JBS dogma which often comes from their
personal experiences within the CPUSA as former FBI informants. Examples will
be discussed below.

In addition, one must consider pertinent testimony
about the status of African Americans in the 1960’s.

For example, in November 1964, JBS member (and
former FBI informant) Rev. Delmar Dennis told the FBI that:

"The Klan
in Mississippi has completely infiltrated every phase of the legal,
political, social and economic system in Mississippi. The membership in
the Klan ranges from common laborers and criminals, to judges, lawyers, doctors
and political leaders. While they may not be active members, they are secret
members who use their influence to further Klan efforts and aid Klan
activities, for example, it is generally known in Klan circles that supervisors
who pick juries use their influence to get Klan members on the jury
panel." [FBI
Jackson field file 197-17905-5, no serial #, 11/28/64 Dennis informant report,
page 10]

Similarly, George Schuyler, a prominent
African-American intellectual and JBS endorser plus a speaker under the
auspices of the Birch Society’s American Opinion Speakers Bureau wrote in 1961:

"The White Citizens Council which
has branches or cells everywhere, controls by terror such states as Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and to a lesser extent,
Virginia...It has defied and disrupted the operation of the laws of the land.
It has used threats and vicious economic reprisals...It has become a legal arm
of Mississippi's Government." [4/22/61 Schuyler column
in Pittsburgh PA Courier]

Despite these admissions, however, the Birch Society (and Dan Smoot)
characterize our civil rights movement as entirely the creation of, and
dominated by, "Communists" and "Communist sympathizers" -- as if
opposition to the prevailing values and norms within Mississippi described by
Rev. Dennis and within southern states generally as described by George
Schuyler could only come from disloyal, subversive, or radical Americans who
had no genuine interest in social justice.

By contrast, see following statements by
J. Edgar Hoover:

"It would be absurd
to suggest that the aspirations of Negroes for equality are communist inspired.
This is demonstrably not true." [Hoover speech, Faith In Freedom, 12/4/63, page 6.]

"In general, legitimate civil
rights organizations have been successful in excluding Communists, although a
few have received covert counseling from them and have even accepted them as
members…The CP is not satisfied with this situation and is continually striving
to infiltrate the civil rights movement at every level." [Hoover interview, U.S. News and World Report, 11/1/65,
page 46; Note: why
would Communists need to "infiltrate" a movement that
Smoot claims they "created"?]

"Let me emphasize that the American
civil rights movement is not,
and has never been,
dominated by the communists---because the overwhelming majority of civil rights
leaders in this country, both Negro and white, have recognized and rejected
communism as a menace to the freedoms of all." [Hoover speech, Our Heritage of Greatness, 12/12/64,
page 7, emphasis in bold type
appears in original document].

A Birch Society member wrote to Hoover in
1966 after seeing the above quote in a letter-to-the-editor of his local
newspaper. He asked Hoover if the quote was accurate and, if
so, whether or not it reflected his analysis both in 1964 and
1966. Hoover replied affirmatively and concluded: "This position remains essentially unchanged today." [HQ
62-104401, #3211; 11/15/66 reply to incoming inquiry by JBS member.]

"It is no secret that
one of the bitterest disappointments of communistic efforts in this Nation has
been their failure to lure our Negro citizens into the Party. Despite every
type of propaganda boomed at our Nation's Negro citizens, they have never
succumbed to the Party's saccharine promises of a Communist `Utopia'. This
generation and generations to come for many years owe a tremendous debt to our
Negro citizens who have consistently refused to surrender their freedoms for
the tyranny of communism." [J. Edgar Hoover: An Analysis of the 17th National Convention
of the Communist Party USA; Statement made to Senate Internal Security
Subcommittee, 1/17/60 and reprinted in FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, March 1960, page 7]

Dan
Smoot on NAACP:

In the July 6, 1964 issue of Dan Smoot Report (DSR) Smoot discusses
the history of how the NAACP was founded by "55
prominent 'liberals and socialists'
mostly white". [Note that
Smoot placed quotes around liberals and socialists to reflect his contempt for
that description because he considered the NAACP to be a subversive
organization founded and led by subversives.]

Dan then writes:

"In 1920, the New York State
Legislative Committee Investigating Seditious Activities branded the NAACP a
subversive organization, interlocked with several other socialist
organizations, including the socialist party." (DSR, 1/6/64, p. 170)

One wonders why Smoot did not consider it
significant to report that the NAACP was never cited as "subversive" or as a "Communist front" on any official
list including:

the "Attorney
General's List of Totalitarian, Fascist, Communist, Subversive, and Other
Organizations"

the House Committee on Un-American
Activities' "Guide to
Subversive Organizations and Publications"

or by the Subversive Activities Control Board or
the Loyalty Review Board

Nor has NAACP membership ever been considered
grounds for denying security clearances by our military or our government
agencies nor would such membership trigger a security investigation.

Smoot's
article continues by stating:

"By 1956, at least 77
top officials of the NAACP were known to agencies of the federal government as
persons who participated in communist or pro-communist activities".

Participated
in what way? For how long? For what reasons?

Dan doesn't say. Instead, he prefers to leave
matters in the form of vague, sinister innuendo -- a common tactic in
conspiracy arguments.

Among the persons whom Smoot thought deserved
suspicion because of their alleged "communist-front records" were:

Smoot also cited March 1957 testimony by Manning
Johnson before a pro-segregation Louisiana legislative committee. Johnson
testified against the NAACP and its Executive Secretary, Walter White.
The Louisiana report is entitled "Subversion
in Racial Unrest".

According to Manning Johnson:

"Basically, Walter White was never
against the Communists, because he joined with them in numerous Communist front
movements….while at the same time the Communists were actively infiltrating the
organization from below…" (DSR, 6/6/64, page 171)

By contrast, the FBI regarded all of
the "suspect" persons named
by Smoot as responsible anti-Communists!

For the purposes of this discussion, I will focus
below upon Roy Wilkins, Walter White, and A. Philip Randolph. [Morris Ernst,
the General Counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, was an FBI informant
who had a close personal relationship with senior Bureau officials and the FBI
provided assistance to him for his 1952 book, Report on the American Communist.]

Julia
Brown on NAACP and Walter White

Julia Brown joined the Communist Party but
subsequently realized her mistake and she went to the FBI to report her
activities. The Bureau asked her to remain in the Party and provide them with
information---which she did.

After surfacing as an FBI informant, Julia became a
paid speaker for the John Birch Society.

Dan Smoot endorsed the Birch Society and
he often spoke at Birch Society functions. After he discontinued his
newsletter, Dan Smoot Report, his
subscribers received the Birch Society newsweekly magazine "Review of the News" to fulfill
whatever time remained on their DSR subscriptions. In addition, Dan
continued to write articles for Review
of the News and for other JBS publications.

In a March 1961 magazine interview, Julia
Brown stated that Communists had "little
or no influence" within the NAACP and she concluded that:

"I'm 100 percent with the NAACP and
I think they are doing a wonderful job and so does the FBI. Top government
officials are aware that the NAACP is legal and is working in the American way
for first class citizenship for all Americans." [Ebony magazine, "I
Was a Spy For the FBI", March 1961, p102]

In another magazine interview, Julia said:

"I don't think the
Communists have appeal to Negroes. I feel that American Negroes are awakened to
the menace of Communism." [Sepia magazine,
"Communist For The FBI", September
1962, p12]

Also see Julia's discussion about the NAACP, and in
particular, her characterization of Walter White in her 1966 book, I Testify – which was published by
the Birch Society:

"Many times I have been asked if
the NAACP was a Communist front organization. I have been able to say,
truthfully, that, so far as I could discern, it was not. Indeed the great
Walter White, executive secretary of the NAACP prior to his death, fought
Communism with might and main. Older NAACP leaders have been equally fierce in
their opposition to the Red conspiracy. But it has only been by dint of great
effort on the part of these loyal men and women that the Party has been
thwarted in its attempts to completely dominate the NAACP." … [Julia
Brown, I Testify: My Years As An FBI
Undercover Agent, Western Islands, 1966, pages 124-125.]

Julia also mentions that the wife of one prominent
CPUSA official "hated the NAACP as did all
other Communists." (Ibid, page 125]

And referring to the Communist Party attempt to
exploit the murder of 14 year old Emmett Till to its advantage, Julia observed:

"Greater success might have
attended these efforts had the Party not been opposed by the NAACP…The CPUSA
criticized the NAACP bitterly for not conducting a more militant campaign of
protests and demonstrations. The NAACP adamantly refused to let itself be used,
and counseled its members to avoid any action which would reflect adversely on
Negroes." (Ibid,
page 165]

Lola
Belle Holmes on NAACP

Lola Belle Holmes also joined the CPUSA at the
request of the FBI. From August 1957 to January 24, 1963, Lola worked
inside the Communist Party in Chicago and she provided information
about Communist Party matters to the FBI. She also subsequently became a paid
speaker for the Birch Society.

Lola's NAACP comments parallel those made by Julia
Brown (discussed above). Prior to appearing on the Birch Society's lecture circuit
as a paid speaker Lola (like Julia Brown) characterized CPUSA attempts to
infiltrate NAACP as unsuccessful due to the anti-Communist leadership of
the NAACP.

Only after joining the JBS as paid speakers
did both Lola and Julia dramatically change their tune.

Lola discussed CPUSA attempts to infiltrate NAACP
and the Negro American Labor Council during her testimony before the House
Committee on Un-American Activities:

"I was on the NAACP caucus of the
Communist Party from 1957 until 1959. I was nominated as secretary for the
NAACP against the incumbent, and at that time we lost the
election...Subsequently, the national office declared the election valid and
the Party slate was thrown out. After the Party slate was thrown out, the Party
caucus had a meeting in 1960 and decided to pull its forces out of the NAACP
because they realized they could not work in the NAACP effectively." [Communist Activities in The Chicago Illinois Area, part 1; Hearings
before the House Committee on Un-American Activities; May 25-27 and June
22, 1965, page 372.]

HUAC Chairman Edwin Willis then asked Lola:

"Do I take it that
these caucuses in the NAACP were not with the knowledge or approval of the
leadership of the NAACP?"

Lola replied:

"It definitely was
not with the knowledge...I want it to be very clear the leadership of either
organization did not know that the CP had caucuses working in their respective
organizations. When they found it out, they found out who they were, they
immediately dropped them from the membership list." [Ibid]

George
Schuyler on NAACP

George Schuyler is yet another John Birch Society
speaker and writer whose evaluation of the NAACP and its leadership refuted
standard dogma promoted by Dan Smoot and the JBS. For example, in a
1947 column he wrote the following about the NAACP:

“Unlike many other organizations that
screamed for justice for Negroes, it had no ulterior motives, no axes to grind,
foreign or domestic, only a deep desire to further the advancement of colored
people, socially, politically, and economically.”

Then referring to the problems of racial
discrimination still in existence after World War II came to a close Schuyler
observed:

“These evils have to be combated with
skill and intelligence and the NAACP is the only sincere and capable
organization prepared to do it. Unlike such organizations as the
National Negro Congress, it is not connected with any foreign ideology or
power, and it shies far away from the Communist Party line which is the way to
group suicide…no one can deny that the NAACP is THE great champion and defender
of our rights in this civilization and its long and remarkable record in this
connections obligates every libertarian, regardless of color or creed, to give
it this fullest support year in and year out.” [Schuyler column “Views and Reviews”, Pittsburgh (PA) Courier, 2/15/47].

FBI
and HUAC on NAACP

In April 1947, J. Edgar Hoover replied to a letter
from NAACP Executive Secretary Walter White:

"Equality, freedom,
and tolerance are essential in a democratic government. The National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People has done much to preserve
these principles and to perpetuate the desires of our founding fathers." [HQ
61-3176, #378X thru #383, 4/14/47 thru 4/21/47, White
to Hoover and Hoover reply to White; Also see HQ 61-3176, #1076,
where White's letter is discussed in 10/19/55 memo from FBI
Assistant Director Louis Nichols to FBI Associate Director Clyde Tolson.]

In 1954, the House Committee on Un-American
Activities published a report entitled “The American Negro in the Communist Party” which concluded
that “The fact that the Communist conspiracy has
experienced so little success in attracting the American Negro to its cause
reflects favorably on the loyalty and integrity of the vast majority of the
15,000,000 Negro citizens.”

The HCUA report goes on to state that the “CPUSA has exploited issues of genuine concern to the
American Negro and all Americans…”

The HCUA summarized the testimony of two African
Americans (Sheldon Tappes and Louis Rosser) both of whom detailed how the CPUSA
fought the NAACP during World War II.

Rosser also mentioned how the Party worked to “discredit” and “muzzle”
A. Philip Randolph by publishing a hostile article about him when he received a
NAACP medal for his work seeking integration of blacks into
industry. Randolph was described by the Communist press as a “traitor to his country”. [HCUA, The American Negro in The Communist Party,
pages 7-9]

In 1962 FBI Assistant Director William
C. Sullivan gave a speech in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
He subsequently was attacked because of favorable comments he made about the
NAACP during a Q&A after his speech. The attack was
launched by W.H. (Bill) Rutledge of Shreveport LA. Rutledge was Executive
Director of Citizens Councils of Louisiana, Inc. Sullivan wrote a memo to
summarize his encounter. The memo points out that Rutledge “has connections with the Ku Klux Klan.”

According to Sullivan:

“In a question period at Baton
Rouge, I was asked if the NAACP had been cited as a Communist front
organization on the Attorney General’s List. I replied that it had
not. I was then asked if any communists had ever infiltrated the
NAACP. I replied that communists had infiltrated certain local
chapters of the NAACP and explained that because of such infiltration in
the Chicago chapter, it had been expelled from the parent
organization. I further pointed out that the NAACP was a constant
target of communist infiltration, while at the same time, responsible leaders
of the NAACP on a national level were attempting to resist communist
infiltration and that only the future knew the answer to the final outcome of
this encounter. I was then asked if the NAACP was controlled on the
national level by communists. I replied that it was not, but again
emphasized that the fact remains all levels of the NAACP, as well as all other
mass organizations in the United States, had been and will continue to be
a target for communist propaganda and infiltration. When asked to
disclose the identity of communists who had infiltrated the NAACP, I replied
that this information was classified and could not be divulged.” [HQ 105-40774, #40 =
5/18/62 memo by W.C. Sullivan to A.H. Belmont pertaining to Citizens Council of
Greater New Orleans.]

The Bureau prepared two comprehensive monographs on
the history of "The Communist
Party and the Negro". In the October 1956 edition, the Bureau
concluded:

"Persons identified with the
Communist Party and the NAACP have, in the past, acted jointly and frequently
engaged in parallel activities. However, it must be kept in mind that the
ultimate aims of these two groups are entirely distinct. The CP seeks to foster
discord and discontent among the Negro race by agitation and
propaganda...whereas the goal of the NAACP is to achieve full racial
integration and equality within the present form of government. It is to be
noted that the CPUSA, in order to confuse the American people, is attempting to
make its policies parallel to those of the NAACP on controversial, racial
issues....The NAACP held its 47th annual convention in San Francisco CA from
June 26 to July 1, 1956. It re-affirmed its anti-communist position and at the
same time extended its policy of non-cooperation withcommunist-controlled
groups to declare communists ineligible for membership in the NAACP."

The monograph then goes on to discuss attempts by
Communists to infiltrate and use NAACP chapters around the country and how
local NAACP leaders repulsed such attempts.

Similarly, J. Edgar Hoover discusses the anti-Communist
policies of the NAACP in his book, Masters
of Deceit:

"The
(Communist) Party has made vigorous efforts to
infiltrate the NAACP. This organization in 1950 authorized its board of
directors to revoke the charter of any chapter found to be communist-controlled." ... Hoover then
discussed several such infiltration attempts and how NAACP officials thwarted
them. [J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of
Deceit, Henry Holt, 1958, p229-230].

Numerous documents in FBI investigative files
reveal the unhappiness of senior CPUSA leaders with the NAACP and the failure
of the Communist Party to have any significant impact upon both the NAACP and
other civil rights organizations.

In July 1963, J. Edgar Hoover sent a memo to all
field offices which advised them of the creation of a new HQ file (100-3-116)
which was to be used to capture information regarding “Communist Influence In Racial Matters” as a consequence of the
Party’s renewed interest in exploiting opportunities presented by the civil
rights movement.

Hoover’s memo portrayed the CPUSA as outsiders
seeking to exert influence within legitimate civil rights organizations and it
quoted comments by CP leaders lamenting the lack of CP involvement within the
civil rights movement. One pertinent excerpt of Hoover’s memo follows:

“In recent weeks functionaries of the
CPUSA have made statements which indicate their concern over the lack of Party
participation in the current Negro movement. Benjamin J. Davis Jr.
remarked on 6/19/63 while attending a meeting of leading CPUSA functionaries,
‘We are witnessing a revolutionary
movement in our country, but we are just not in it…’ Irving Potash, on
this same date, remarked that ‘we’ are
not coming forward. Not writing and not giving
leadership. The leadership of the Party, according to Potash, should
explore all ways and means for the purpose of playing a bigger role in the
struggle.” [Chicago 100-46624,
#1; 7/18/63 J. Edgar Hoover memo to all Special Agents in Charge of
FBI field offices.]

A few days later, the Chicago field
office sent its first report to headquarters on the status of CPUSA efforts at
infiltrating civil rights groups. Chicago reported that one CP
member had infiltrated NAACP’s Illinois state headquarters, “however he has not influenced the organization in any
specific direction as far as Party policy is concerned.” [Chicago 100-46624,
#2, 7/24/63 SAC Chicago memo to J. Edgar Hoover]

On February 13-14, 1960, there was a meeting
of senior Communist Party officials in the midwest.

Each representative present gave a summary of their
attempts to infiltrate the NAACP. The following comments are from what
is described an FBI informant who attended the meeting but it may have
been a technical device which recorded the conversations. The page numbers
shown below reflect the page numbers of the FBI summary memo where
the comments cited are made.

Pg.9, Cleveland rep: "He referred to a period of the late 40's and said at that
time the CP had five members on the Executive Board of the NAACP. Now the
CP has no members on the Executive Board of the NAACP in Cleveland."
Rep also referred to the "constant
red-baiting of local NAACP leaders."

Page 11: Chicago rep: "The problem confronting the CP is how to work now in an
organization in which it is very difficult to get on a committee and in which
the committees do not function."

Page 11-12: Detroit rep: "He said it is hard to work in the NAACP in Detroit...He
stated that the big problem as far as he is concerned is that the CP says that
members should work in the NAACP, but how do you do it? Every time
we make a move, we are stopped and stifled. As a result, we are demoralized...In
regard to the role of the CP in the NAACP (name deleted) feels that it is correct to work in the NAACP, but it is
necessary to do so from a position of strength. But the CP does not
have strength at the present time."

Page 13: St. Louis rep: “He stated that the CP has no one consistently working in the
NAACP in St. Louis." [NYC 100-80640,
unrecorded; 2/17/60 SAC Chicago to J. Edgar Hoover re: 2/13-14/60 CP
meeting].

As all these statements make clear, J. Edgar Hoover
and the FBI saw Communists as OUTSIDERS seeking to infiltrate the civil
rights movement and achieve influence and control whereas Dan Smoot saw them
as INSIDERS who
created the movement and controlled it from its inception.

ROY
WILKINS

In April 1955 Roy Wilkins succeeded the recently
deceased Walter White as Executive Secretary of the NAACP. J. Edgar
Hoover asked his subordinates, "What do we
know about him?"

The resulting summary memo was
dated 4/13/55. The memo summarized Wilkins' earlier associations
with left-wing organizations but concluded that Wilkins was "strongly anti-communist and has done all possible to steer
NAACP away from any Communist infiltration."

The memo also summarized a 1949 report by an
informant within the CPUSA which stated that the CPUSA was "greatly concerned over participation of Roy Wilkins” at
a particular function because “Wilkins openly
opposed to tactics of Communist Party and had been one of leaders in NAACP
responsible for defeat of the Communists in their effort to take over the
organization on a national scale."

The memo also mentions an article by “Benjamin Davis and Henry Winston, Communist Party
functionaries on national level, critical of Wilkins in January 1950 because he
would not accept Communist help.” [HQ 62-78270,
unrecorded, 4/13/55, M.A. Jones to Mr. Nichols.]

During the 1960's, Wilkins was one of the
black leaders whom the FBI thought to be a responsible,
moderate, anti-communist and one of two prominent African-Americans
that the Bureau considered as the most desirable potential replacement for
Martin Luther King Jr. as the leading advocate for African-Americans. The
other person was Samuel Pierce.

In April 1968, FBI Assistant Director William
Sullivan prepared a paper for publication in Religion In Life, a journal produced by the University of North
Carolina Law School.

In a section captioned "Gains In Equality", Sullivan discusses "precedent-establishing Negroes (who) through hard work
and abundance of ability and talent have become nationally and internationally
prominent."

Among the persons he cited as deserving of respect
and praise and "outstanding recognition"
were the very individuals denounced by Dan Smoot (and the Birch
Society).

Thurgood Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Justice;
Robert C. Weaver, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Ralph
Bunche (who) "has ably served this
country at the United Nations", Carl Rowan "who has served his country with distinction"; and
Roy Wilkins, A. Philip Randolph and Whitney Young (who) "have used their great skill and resources to gain so much for
their fellow Negroes through remedies available under the law." [William
C. Sullivan, Communism and the
American Negro, Winter 1968, Religion
in Life, page 600].

Lola
Belle Holmes on A. Philip Randolph

During her 5/25/65 HUAC testimony Lola
Belle Holmes described A. Phillip Randolph as "anti-Communist". In her HUAC testimony Lola
described the formation of the Negro American Labor Council in 1960:

"It was organized by A. Philip
Randolph with trade union leaders all over the country. They definitely were
not Communists. As you know, Mr. Randolph is not a Communist and...most of the
national executive board members or vice presidents were not Communists." [Communist Activities in The Chicago Illinois
Area, part 1; Hearings before the House Committee on Un-American
Activities; May 25-27 and June 22, 1965, page 372.]

In
1963, Smoot observed that "treacherous
cowardice" infected our intellectual and political leadership and
they wished "to abandon the national
independence which our forefathers won with blood and valorous devotion to high
ideals." This was a major theme in Smoot's 1962 book, The Invisible Government, which
discusses the Council on Foreign Relations.

As one documentation for his conclusion, Smoot
cited a U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency report and Smoot claimed that
one of its authors (Walter Millis) argued for a "world 'completely policed' by an
international army" where "such
uprisings as the American Revolution of 1776 would be suppressed, as was the
Hungarian Revolution, with all the global forces of law and order cooperating."

In his footnote Smoot cites as his source, a
column by Edith Kermit Roosevelt which was placed in the Congressional Record.
(DSR, 7/22/63)

Apparently, Smoot never bothered to read the actual
comments made by Willis which appear in Volume II, ppA-10ff of the USACDA
report.

Willis stated that whatever power structure might
be created, "…the world cannot be denuded of
either the weapons or of the ideas which make revolution possible. Revolution
is, of course, an exercise of coercive power…Yet a world in which a possibility
of revolutionary violence did not exist would be repugnant to most Western
ideas of freedom."

Willis's comment about a "completely policed world" was in the context of explaining why
such a world would be neither likely or desirable. Willis went on to
suggest adoption of an international principle similar to Article II of the
U.S. Bill of Rights concerning the "right of
the people to keep and bear arms".

J.
Edgar Hoover on Dan Smoot

"I welcome this opportunity to make
it perfectly clear that former Special Agents of the FBI are not necessarily
experts on communism. Some of them have sought to capitalize on their former
employment with this Bureau for the purpose of establishing themselves as such
authorities. I am firmly convinced there are too many self-styled experts on
communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to
classified, factual data, who are engaging in rumormongering and hurling false
and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against people whose views differ from
their own. Such activity makes more difficult the task of the professional
investigator." [HQ
62-102675, #107; 5/23/62JEH reply to inquiry about Dan Smoot.]

Dan
Smoot on J. Edgar Hoover

"Throughout my time in the FBI and
for the next twenty years thereafter (when I was daily writing, speaking,
broadcasting about events involving officials and programs of the federal
government), I held the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover in high esteem---an attitude
which I always expressed on the rare occasions when I mentioned Hoover or the
FBI, either privately or publicly." [1/27/94 Smoot letter to me.]

"No one in America has a deeper
reverence for American constitutional guarantees of individual freedom than J.
Edgar Hoover has…Mr. Hoover has the deepest respect for all the constitutional
restraints upon governmental power which make law enforcement difficult in the
United States…All the communist propaganda…about FBI agents being abusive or
violating the constitutional rights of people, or using gestapo tactics is a
lie. Mr. Hoover would instantly fire any FBI agent who did such things." [Dan Smoot Report, 7/22/57, page 1]

Additional information concerning Dan Smoot may be
found in my 157-page report on the John Birch Society. The report is based,
primarily, upon first-time-released FBI documents.

Brand new Chapterwhich presents history of JBS through documents --
most of which have never previously been publicly available. This chapter is
a work-in-progress and will probably not be completed for several months.

[This
Smoot report greatly expands upon the data presented in chapter 7 of my John
Birch Society report and it includes a lengthy discussion of extreme right
assertions about our civil rights movement]